GAO Denies WFL Protest and Applies Stricter Pleading Standard Under FY2025 NDAA (Footnote 3)
In a recent decision dated August 5, 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest of Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc. (WFL) regarding the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) award of a delivery order to Vehicle Maintenance Program, Inc. (VMP) for 1,770 vehicle tire cross chains. The procurement was conducted as a small business set-aside under simplified acquisition and emergency procurement procedures, with award based on a best-value tradeoff considering past performance, delivery, and price.
WFL raised multiple objections, arguing that DLA improperly bypassed its existing long-term contract (LTC), misjudged past performance, unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s quotation, and conducted a flawed source selection. The company contended that its LTC with DLA covered the exact National Stock Number at issue and that quantities under that LTC had not been exhausted. GAO dismissed this claim, holding that deciding whether the LTC should have been used would require interpreting and enforcing an existing contract—matters of contract administration reserved for boards of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. GAO also found untimely WFL’s related argument that issuing the RFQ was the result of an acquisition planning error, noting that the company knew before the proposal deadline that DLA would not be using the LTC but failed to protest before closing.
A central allegation was that VMP misrepresented its available inventory. WFL asserted that both firms used the same supplier and that VMP’s quoted stock actually belonged to WFL. GAO found these assertions speculative and unsupported by evidence. This is where footnote 3 of the decision is particularly significant—it reflects GAO’s adoption of a clarified pleading standard in response to the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act. Under this standard, protesters must now provide credible allegations supported by evidence that, if uncontradicted, would establish the likelihood of improper agency action. “Bare allegations” or statements based solely on “information and belief” no longer suffice. GAO applied this heightened requirement to WFL’s claim, concluding that the lack of supporting proof rendered the allegation legally and factually insufficient. This marks a notable tightening of bid protest pleading requirements, signaling that contractors must bring tangible evidence to survive dismissal.
On past performance, GAO upheld DLA’s assessment. The agency relied on Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) and Vendor Performance History (VPH) scores, which showed WFL with low ratings—6 out of 100 in SPRS, 26 out of 100 in VPH, a delinquency rate of 67.6%, and an average delivery time of 19 days late. WFL argued these scores reflected misunderstandings in prior contracts, but GAO found the agency acted within its discretion in relying on credible, solicitation-specified sources without opening discussions. Disputes over the accuracy of performance data, GAO noted, are matters of contract administration and must be pursued through established channels for challenging SPRS entries.
Finally, GAO rejected WFL’s challenge to the source selection decision. While VMP’s price was higher and delivery longer, the contracting officer concluded that VMP’s superior past performance justified the price premium. GAO found this rationale adequately documented and consistent with best-value principles, emphasizing that disagreement with an agency’s judgment does not establish unreasonableness.
This decision underscores several key points for federal contractors: GAO will not adjudicate disputes that hinge on interpreting existing contracts; timeliness rules are strictly enforced; past performance evaluations based on credible systems will be upheld absent compelling contrary evidence; and, most importantly in light of footnote 3, protesters must now meet a more rigorous evidentiary threshold when alleging procurement improprieties. For contractors, this means gathering and presenting substantiated, document-based proof is not optional—it is essential for a protest to proceed.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified counsel for guidance on specific circumstances.